After all, you fought hard for honor and integrity. You are not a hypocrite. You said so yourself.

Sunday, May 26, 2002
http://www.sltrib.com/05262002/commenta/739730.htm
BY LORIN NELSON
I have to wonder at the astounding silence from
those who frothed and rattled ceaselessly for the
impeachment of Bill Clinton. Isn't it inconsistent and
blatantly dishonest not to be calling for an
investigation of the sitting administration?
Let's see, the charges against William Jefferson
Clinton were perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse
of power. As far as I know, President Bush hasn't yet
had the opportunity to lie under court oath but he
surely has lied about his relationship with Kenneth Lay,
the staggeringly rich poor boy of Enron infamy. At least
three times he publicly denied knowing Ken Lay, the
guy who donated the very jet that shuttled Bush around
during his campaign. The guy for whom Bush
interrupted his campaign so he could watch him toss
the first pitch at Enron Field. Ken Lay, the man who ran
the single largest corporate contributor to the
Republican Party. Bush has acted like he never heard of
the guy. Lay has publicly recalled differently. But that
was just lying while under the oath of office and only
to the press and the American people. Not the court.
Besides, Bush is such a friendly guy and has given so
many people cute nicknames, maybe he really doesn't
remember calling him "Kenny Boy."
Dick Cheney has lied about national security matters
when his Haliburton firm did trade with Iraq (now part
of the so-called Axis-of-Evil, you might recall) after it
was against federal law to do so. Whoops. Cheney's
Haliburton paid $2 million for defrauding the
government by inflating what the taxpayers had to pay
for contract maintenance and repairs at Fort Ord in
California. Very likely, that $2 million was less than
Haliburton profited from the scheme. We trust him to
protect our national interests over his and his friends'
financial interests? His history shows that to be
extremely foolish. But it is questionable that all of this
meets the definition of perjury, so we'll leave perjury
out of the immediate considerations and move on to
the remaining charges.
Obstruction of justice. That sure sound like a serious
charge. I think most Americans really want to believe
that justice prevails in their country. While there are
some embarrassments, we generally have a proud
history in our efforts at being a just society. The
obstruction of justice naturally galls us as Americans,
as it should.
The written charges against Clinton began with the
statement: "The president has misused and abused the
office and impaired the administration of justice." In
Clinton's case, the charges that he obstructed justice
were mostly about his lying, giving misleading
statements or encouraging others to do so on his
behalf relating to the Paula Jones case.
Basically, denying accurate information in the pursuit
of justice. Evil right? Well, certainly not presidential
behavior. The movement to impeach Clinton made it
clear that was unacceptable. This administration seems
to think that refusal to respect requests for public
information is OK. Heck, Cheney said it was a matter of
principle. He refuses to elaborate on that novel
concept while he denies us accurate information in the
pursuit of justice. He's not lying because he won't say
anything. Still, I think that counts as obstruction.
In this case it is not just the president, but also the
vice president and quite possibly several White House
officials as well who should be investigated for high
crimes and misdemeanors against the American public.
With his flat refusal to grant their requests for
information regarding the Energy Task Force and
Enron's influence over energy policy, Cheney has
demonstrated his contempt for the General Accounting
Office and the public's right to know what its
government is doing.
The White House refused to account for Karl Rove's
meetings with the heads of companies in which he
held stock. Bush-Cheney have thrown a blanket of
secrecy over all sorts of information for no apparent
reason other than to establish precedent by which they
can withhold anything. I can't see how this serves the
public. All of this seems suspiciously evasive and
clearly at odds with the ideals of free and open
government. There are grounds for suspecting that
this administration's top officials are obstructing lawful
investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing. So
why is it so quiet?
I recall many people clamoring that refusal to
release information implied guilt when it was the
Clinton administration that was withholding
information. In contrast to the Bush-Cheney regime,
the Clinton White House was extremely forthcoming in
supplying information upon request.
As for abusing the office, Clinton had nothing on
these giants of industry and well-greased cogs of their
party's political machine. Clinton was accused of selling
influence and lying to the American people, impairing
the administration of justice.
The whole White House reeks of
return-on-investment politics. At least 51 White House
officials have direct ties to Enron. Thomas White,
secretary of the Army, is a former chair of Enron
Energy. Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's chief economic
adviser, is a former advisor for Enron. Robert Zoellick,
Bush's federal trade representative, is a former adviser
to Enron.
Feeling secure about your country's economy under
these hands? What do you want to bet that when you
are trying to live within the means of your Social
Security checks these guys will be golfing the days
away in plush retirement? Remember, please, that
Enron was at the top of the list of private companies
Bush recommended the Social Security program invest
in when he was pushing privatization on the campaign
trail.
The list of Enron cronies in the Bush-Cheney
administration goes on and on. The White House
announced its opposition to price caps on electricity
during the California power crisis the day after
Cheney's meeting, in the White House, with Enron
officials. And we have Karl Rove who helped Intel gain
government approval of a merger that enriched him
personally since Rove failed to reveal and sell his stake
in Intel until after the merger had taken place and the
stock's value had risen considerably. To me at least,
this kind of whoring is far more disturbing than the
juvenile antics of Bill and Monica.
Still, it seems quiet. Maybe you are still in shock and
temporarily crippled by outrage. Perhaps you want to
get the facts straight before you let the rage and
indignation at this situation take hold. After all, these
are very serious issues we're talking about, directly
impacting thousands more people than Paula, Monica
or a relatively petty real estate investment scheme
ever did.
The offices of the president and vice president of
the United States of America are being abused and
dishonored by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It is
quite clear there is ample reason to believe that this
administration may have committed crimes and
misdemeanors great enough to warrant impeachment.
I still don't hear the calls for justice from those of you
who couldn't say Clinton's name without bringing up
impeachment. Maybe you're tired from the long fight.
But I know you will raise your voices again in defense
of the honor and integrity of the office of the
presidency of the United States of America. Soon the
silence will stop and the roar of true patriotism will call
out in righteousness once again. I know this because
you swore that it wasn't just personal, it was the
principle. You told everyone that you were fighting to
bring honor back, that integrity mattered. Many
believed this. Now you have the opportunity and duty
to prove it. After all, you fought hard for honor and
integrity. You are not a hypocrite. You said so yourself.

Answers

Has Cherri found a name or is this a new source of op-ed
regurgitation? Personally, I thought if Clinton had a shred of
decency, he would have resigned. I would expect the same of any
person in a position of responsibility caught dallying with an intern.

I did not think Clinton's behavior, however tawdry, met the
impeachment threshold of "high crimes." One concern during the
Clinton scandals was that impeachment would become a common form of
political vendetta... just as suggested in this hystrionic op-ed
piece. What tripe.